TPS DCLB legal court claim

Le_Kirk

Just post your paragraphs 2 & 3 here for critique but obviously use all the paragraphs, after checking, to send to CNBC.

Coupon-mad

Nobody said you can't run your one changed sentence past us!  That isn't what I said.

Fluffydogs1011

Thank you again for your help so far. 

I'm thinking about what to put for paragraph 3. 

 Does the "parked with no valid permit" in the POC count as a breach? Or does it mean that they have not stated what the breach was? It's not an adequate description really as there are no reference to the signs. 

* I ask this because I saw in the template that: "Most claims do not even state the alleged breach. If yours doesn't state what the breach was, add the paragraphs and judgments seen in the defence by @hharry100 ".  

Should I:

A) Write my own defence and add the paragraphs from
@hharry100?
Just write my own paragraph 3? 

If I need to write my own defence how long does it need to be? 

I'm a bit lost with it. 

No valid permit defence: 

I was driving and I do remember putting my number plate in the gym iPad. They have no proof that this was not done.  I bet they've had issues with the iPad before as I've heard other people complain about this. 

Breach of terms on the sign defence 

How can they prove I be in breach of the terms on the signs (the contract)? Any tips for defence of this would be most appreciated.

thank you 

Coupon-mad

Fluffydogs1011 said:

But your POC does state the alleged breach and I already told you what to put as paragraph 3 in my reply here:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81224016/#Comment_81224016

Fluffydogs1011

Ok. Thank you. Would this be good enough for paragraph 3:

"The defendant put the VRM in the small screen at the gym, as she had some previously as she was a member of the gym for months. 

The keypad on the touch screen was precarious and sometimes failed. Many members found this to be a problem. The claimant has not made it clear that there was an error with the machine provide. To charge the defendant for an error with the machine or any technical difficulty, therefore it is not reasonable or recoverable in any event."

Question: I contacted the gym when this happened and they refused to cooperate. Do I need to contact the gym to get evidence of the keypad issue? 

Coupon-mad

That's not the standard para 3 I suggested. The one seen in every single DCB Legal defence right now.

KeithP

Fluffydogs1011 said:

Question: I contacted the gym when this happened and they refused to cooperate. Do I need to contact the gym to get evidence of the keypad issue? 

Apart from anything else, you need to contact the gym and terminate your membership.
Refusing to help paying customers is a big nono in my book.

Fluffydogs1011

I thought I had to copy the template and edit out paragraph 3 because it says "explain in your own words and write in third person"? Sorry if I'm misunderstanding but this is the template I'm looking at

Fluffydogs1011

Paragraph 2 and 3 of my defence. 

Is this what I need to put? Is this the correct way to put it/ would you add or change anything? 

The facts known to the Defendant:

2.     The facts in this defence come from the Defendant's own knowledge and honest belief.  Conversely, the Claimant sets out a cut-and-paste incoherent and sparse statement of case. The POC appear to be in breach of CPR 16.4, 16PD3 and 16PD7, and fail to "state all facts necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action". The Defendant is unable, on the basis of the POC, to understand with certainty what case, allegation(s) and what heads of cost are being pursued, making it difficult to respond. However, the vehicle is recognised and it is admitted that the Defendant was the registered keeper, but NOT the driver at the time.

3.     Referring to the POC: paragraph 1 is denied. The Defendant is not indebted to the Claimant. Paragraph 2 is denied. No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit).  Whilst the Defendant is the registered keeper, paragraphs 3 and 4 are denied. The Defendant is not liable and has seen no evidence of a breach of prominent terms.  The quantum is hugely exaggerated (no PCN can be £170 on private land) and there were no damages incurred whatsoever. The Claimant is put to strict proof of all of their allegations.

My Additional comments: 

The defendant put the VRM in the small screen at the gym, as she had some previously as she was a member of the gym for months. 

The keypad on the touch screen was precarious and sometimes failed. Many members found this to be a problem. The claimant has not made it clear that there was an error with the machine provide. To charge the defendant for an error with the machine or any technical difficulty, therefore it is not reasonable or recoverable in any event."

1505grandad

Para 3  -  "No PCN was "issued on 20/03/2023" (the date of the alleged visit...."

However your op states:-

"I received a DBCL legal letter of claim regarding a PcN back in April 2024."